Napoleon (2 Viewers)

[damian]

The anti-Napoleon crowd also thrill to major battles especially those that focus around a particular 100 day period where we saved the world from ruin.
Now Maitland, Now's your time. Clear those fellows away"

 

[OzDigger]

Ah 'Waterloo', now that's a great movie with some good lines and stirring music.

 

[1879fanatic]

No doubt, the Nap era is chock full of excitement and I think that is deep down what Ron really finds amazing about the era. I don't really think Ron tries to glorify the policies of Napoleon as much as he still "Hears the guns". He sees major battles the same way I see them with Caesar - armies squaring up and going at one another. To me, I have the ability to make the disconnect between the military history/science aspect of the events of that period and the policies of some of the personalities and I am sure Ron feels the same

Beautiful words and exactly what we all see in those old battles and times gone by, CC. Well Written. Mike

 

[Spitfrnd]

...
Why it is so popular this way of fighting? I never understand this military tradition, from the early 17th Century to mid-19th. You fire first than it is my turn......With no offences to nobody, its looks ridiculous.

IMO, if you put the Roman Armyor any ancient Army (2 000 years ago) against any type of white wigs of these eras, the Romans will massacre then....with no gun powder....
...

Why they fought in that manner is a good question. Certainly it proved effective for that time and not so ridiculous to those on the receiveing end of the volleys.

As to the second point, I don't know about any ancient but the Romans at their prime probably didn't need guns and might very well have wiped the floor with those armies.

 

[VanguardFC007]

Why they fought in that manner is a good question. Certainly it proved effective for that time and not so ridiculous to those on the receiveing end of the volleys.

As to the second point, I don't know about any ancient but the Romans at their prime probably didn't need guns and might very well have wiped the floor with those armies.

Not if the British had Richard Sharpe and his Chosen Men...

 

[Rob]

I think what was even more sad/bizzare/obscene was the fact that one hundred years later in WW1 the tactics of advancing troops hadn't changed much at all!.And this was against machine guns and not volley fire!!

Rob

 

[maloyalo]

I definately see the similarities in the paths that Napoleon & Hitler took. Both seem meglomaniacs & you see a pretty dramatic repeat of history as far as their affairs with Britain & Russia.

But I see a difference in the men. It may be just a difference in degree: Hitler being the more monstorous. Or it may be something else. I really do not know.

What attracts me to the period, and to a degree Napoleon, is probably mainly the type of troops and pagentry, and in Napoleon, a mastery of organization (Except screwing up royally in Russia of course. ). I think in the French Corps we see another classic fighting force, much like a Roman legion.

I have been a soldier all my life. If I paraded past a imaginary row of viewing stands filled with all these famous generals we like to talk about, whom would I salute in passing ? Not all surely...but Napo would be a hard call I can tell you.

 

[theBaron]

Many wars have been fought with the weapons and tactics of the previous generation.

 

[Harrytheheid]

Not if the British had Richard Sharpe and his Chosen Men...

Good point there I reckon....

Cheers
H

 

[Spitfrnd]

Not if the British had Richard Sharpe and his Chosen Men...

I knew someone would bring that up. Yes Sharpe would make it more difficult but he didn't have enough men to change the outcome.

 

[VanguardFC007]

I knew someone would bring that up. Yes Sharpe would make it more difficult but he didn't have enough men to change the outcome.

But in the final moments of the battle Sharpe would end up in a sword fight with the Roman general and then it would be all over because Sharpe would use his gutter instincts to ensure that he won.

 

[nmrocks]

Ray

On point 1 - We each have our bias on this part of history - You view Napoleon through an exclusive Anglo lens - I view him through a French lens - nothing changes what you said - as I stated it is your opinion (however, simplistic and over generalized - IMO) and you have that right.

On point 2 - The forum is not large enough for me to tell you how this great man Napoleon changed Warfare, Rights of the Common Man, Governmental Administration, Art, Music and Politics.

You seem to find some quick and unsophisticated words to try to demean a great man who History has judged on the level of Caesar and Alexander the Great.

It is your right to make your naive anglo slanted statements - but, scholars throughout the ages have proven you wrong - long before I may have the chance.

Ron

Ron,
Geez! So my post is "Simplistic,Unsophisticated and Niave"? and to prove this you say nothing in the most glorious terms?
Frankly your reply sounds more like the arostocrisy napoleon did away with than the man you so admire.
Here's the bottom line told way more eloquently with facts by others in the thread.
Napoleon was not without good qualities. In the beginning of his reign he did many changes long overdue to a continent ruled by a corupt royal class thru birthrite. All the freedoms he temporarily put in place until 1804 when he declared himself emperor still pale in comparison to the freedom set forth in a fledgling country years before across the Atlantic. He began the legion of Honor, an award to civilian or military personel to recognize achievement and/or bravery and allow the cream of the french civilian and military to rise to the top of leadership. Hence his great general staff. His organizational skills and management were extrordinary and transformed the Grand Armee into the best fighting machine on the continent(excluding the English who he never beat).
The problem is by choice he was always at war in a quest for his own power,
3,000,000 is the death toll generally agreed upon for the Napoleonic period including around 1,000,000 civilians. Was this a quest to free humanity from tyranny? or even for the people of France? No it was strictly for personal glory, **** the human cost. so this is an admirable man?
Yes he had all the ingredients to be truly great but was consumed by his own ego.
You live and work in a city that is the Capitol of the free world surrounded by monuments to truely great men who spent there lives and fortune for the true betterment of there fellow man and love of there country.
Surrounded everyday by such inspirational, hallowed grounds and people and yet such a proponderence of your post you seek to glorify a despot ruler.
The second largest group in my collection behind WWII is the Napoleonic era, I enjoy the period and Napoleon is at it's center,I have one of his figures.
The figures are the attraction, not the man.
It's just tiresome and old to see these big bold posts to a self consumed tyrant responsible for the deaths of Millions.
Ray

 

[Capitolron]

Ray

Like I have said before - you have the right to your opinion.

It seems that you feel that NAPOLEON was the only ruler in the world who was a belligerent power in Europe. No other empire had grand designs and conquests of their own. Please, that is a slanted view of the era.

This tunnel vision of history is what I simply take exception with. See when you paint with a wide brush - it just gets sloppy.

Ron

Ron,
Geez! So my post is "Simplistic,Unsophisticated and Niave"? and to prove this you say nothing in the most glorious terms?
Frankly your reply sounds more like the arostocrisy napoleon did away with than the man you so admire.
Here's the bottom line told way more eloquently with facts by others in the thread.
Napoleon was not without good qualities. In the beginning of his reign he did many changes long overdue to a continent ruled by a corupt royal class thru birthrite. All the freedoms he temporarily put in place until 1804 when he declared himself emperor still pale in comparison to the freedom set forth in a fledgling country years before across the Atlantic. He began the legion of Honor, an award to civilian or military personel to recognize achievement and/or bravery and allow the cream of the french civilian and military to rise to the top of leadership. Hence his great general staff. His organizational skills and management were extrordinary and transformed the Grand Armee into the best fighting machine on the continent(excluding the English who he never beat).
The problem is by choice he was always at war in a quest for his own power,
3,000,000 is the death toll generally agreed upon for the Napoleonic period including around 1,000,000 civilians. Was this a quest to free humanity from tyranny? or even for the people of France? No it was strictly for personal glory, **** the human cost. so this is an admirable man?
Yes he had all the ingredients to be truly great but was consumed by his own ego.
You live and work in a city that is the Capitol of the free world surrounded by monuments to truely great men who spent there lives and fortune for the true betterment of there fellow man and love of there country.
Surrounded everyday by such inspirational, hallowed grounds and people and yet such a proponderence of your post you seek to glorify a despot ruler.
The second largest group in my collection behind WWII is the Napoleonic era, I enjoy the period and Napoleon is at it's center,I have one of his figures.
The figures are the attraction, not the man.
It's just tiresome and old to see these big bold posts to a self consumed tyrant responsible for the deaths of Millions.
Ray

 

[jazzeum]

Ray and Ron,

Please don't make me delete your posts or close this thread.

 

[Capitolron]

Brad - Excuse me for one minute......



NAPOLEON !


OK - I am good - Thanks !

 

[UKReb]

Ron,
Geez! So my post is "Simplistic,Unsophisticated and Niave"? and to prove this you say nothing in the most glorious terms?
Frankly your reply sounds more like the arostocrisy napoleon did away with than the man you so admire.
Here's the bottom line told way more eloquently with facts by others in the thread.
Napoleon was not without good qualities. In the beginning of his reign he did many changes long overdue to a continent ruled by a corupt royal class thru birthrite. All the freedoms he temporarily put in place until 1804 when he declared himself emperor still pale in comparison to the freedom set forth in a fledgling country years before across the Atlantic. He began the legion of Honor, an award to civilian or military personel to recognize achievement and/or bravery and allow the cream of the french civilian and military to rise to the top of leadership. Hence his great general staff. His organizational skills and management were extrordinary and transformed the Grand Armee into the best fighting machine on the continent(excluding the English who he never beat).
The problem is by choice he was always at war in a quest for his own power,
3,000,000 is the death toll generally agreed upon for the Napoleonic period including around 1,000,000 civilians. Was this a quest to free humanity from tyranny? or even for the people of France? No it was strictly for personal glory, **** the human cost. so this is an admirable man?
Yes he had all the ingredients to be truly great but was consumed by his own ego.
You live and work in a city that is the Capitol of the free world surrounded by monuments to truely great men who spent there lives and fortune for the true betterment of there fellow man and love of there country.
Surrounded everyday by such inspirational, hallowed grounds and people and yet such a proponderence of your post you seek to glorify a despot ruler.
The second largest group in my collection behind WWII is the Napoleonic era, I enjoy the period and Napoleon is at it's center,I have one of his figures.
The figures are the attraction, not the man.
It's just tiresome and old to see these big bold posts to a self consumed tyrant responsible for the deaths of Millions.
Ray

Ron, I've got to say that's a darn good post of Ray's laying out some of the historical facts of old Bonaparte- whether you can agree is another issue.

But I can also accept that one man's hero is another man's tyrant, personally I always thought Jesse James had good reasons to wage war on authority but others here will argue vehemently with my view. It is after all just differing opinions-How one reacts to personal opinions is unfortunately the underlying reason that can start a war.

Reb

 

[Canadian Samurai]

I knew someone would bring that up. Yes Sharpe would make it more difficult but he didn't have enough men to change the outcome.

Well hiding and sniping, while extremely effective, was not always a superior military tactic. Witness the battle of Chrysler's Farm in 1813 during the War of 1812, where British regulars (and Canadian militia) used period line tactics to trounce an American force over three times their number because the disorganized Americans did not know or train for how to fight an open field battle in formation. But the Americans, like the Romans before them, were if anything adaptable and by 1814 they were fielding well trained regulars of their own (which John Jenkins is now rendering in toy soldier form) that were a match for the British forces at the battles of Chippawa and Lundy's Lane. So bottom line is, in an open field battle there was definitely something to be said for Napoleonic infantry tactics (which evolved out of the early and equally slow pike and shot armies), otherwise these tactics would have been disgarded by a commander as brilliant as our dear friend Napoleon supposedly was.

 

[Spitfrnd]

But in the final moments of the battle Sharpe would end up in a sword fight with the Roman general and then it would be all over because Sharpe would use his gutter instincts to ensure that he won.

Well you got me there mate.

 

[Mister Dave]

Ron, I've got to say that's a darn good post of Ray's laying out some of the historical facts of old Bonaparte- whether you can agree is another issue.

But I can also accept that one man's hero is another man's tyrant, personally I always thought Jesse James had good reasons to wage war on authority but others here will argue vehemently with my view. It is after all just differing opinions-How one reacts to personal opinions is unfortunately the underlying reason that can start a war.

Reb

Reb, if you have not seen The Long Riders, I would highly recommend it. It was made in 1980 or so, and I just watched it again last night for the first time in years. A pretty good story about the James/Younger gang and their fateful demise in Northfield, Minnesota where we will be moving to later this Summer. Acting is pretty good with James and Stacy Keach, David, Keith, and Robert Carradine, and Dennis and Randy Quaid as the James, Younger, and Miller Brothers respectively. Also Christopher Guest and his brother play the Ford Brothers. The sound-track is excellent. That bank is still there on main street next to a nice little museum. Have to admit I am considering the Blackhawk figures now, Hmmmm......

Sorry to digress, fellas.

MD

 

[Capitolron]

I think we have beaten this subject long enough - so in closing lets look to a great British Leader for his OPINION.


WELLINGTON

Wellington, when asked who was the greatest General of the Day, answered :

"In this Age, In Past Ages, In Any Age, NAPOLEON.

- Book, WELLINGTON - LONGFORD (1992)